Glenn Gould's Appassionata: A Scandal?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 янв 2023
- Gould’s version of Beethoven's Appassionata differs enormously from what is considered standard today. And because almost everyone plays this piece in about the same way, at least with more or less the same tempo in mind, most people today think that Beethoven must have wanted it "more or less" like that. The question is whether that is the case.
--
🙋We need YOU to continue on (full) speed! THANK YOU for even considering becoming a patreon!▶ / authenticsound
--
Our solution to the metronome problem is called the WBMP (Whole Beat Metronome Principle). Many other 19th century metronome marks is to read them in -what we believe - was the old way: in Whole Beat. In this reading, like the pendulum is still used today by physicians, the metronome ticks indicate the subdivision of the note value in the metronome mark. So you end up counting like one AND two AND three AND... That results in a different tempo yes, but a tempo that exactly matches the metronome mark given by the composer. In our current reading of these metronome marks, we are not able to do that for the simple reason most are way too fast. A logical consequence from actually doubling (yes) the intended tempo. New to the WBMP? Start here: • How Fast did Beethoven...
--
📩Subscribe to be informed about product updates and more 👉bit.ly/as-mailinglist
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticsound.org 
Видеоклипы
Gould slowed down various pieces because he had never heard any other pianists do this. He admitted that at one point. No scandal.
He didn't slow down anything. He just stayed loyal to the composers intent. The other versions are sped up.
@@Seenalltu parles et affirme comme si tu avais eu un entretien privé avec Beethoven,ou même mieux que tu le connaissais personnellement et intimement,pour toi Gould est immense et les autres de piètres comiques de piano.
@@Seenall The composer's intend was restricted by the instrument's mechanic limitations. Beethoven mourned a lot about the limitations of instruments in general. If Beethoven would have had a modern Steinway, op 57/3 would have been an vulcano outburst.
@@jensrichter5603 If Beethoven would have a modern Steinway, he would compose for an old or a YAMAHA, because modern Steinways sound like computer - much to brilliant in the high notes, nothing in the basses. The sound of modern Steinways is bullshit! - Our modern pianistic world is oriented on Liszt, Liszt was that brilliant virtuoso, known for immense showmanship and the rich world of pianoplaying died - like New Hollywood for Marvel - and all there was left, was higher, stronger faster. The modern Steinway is an exampel of that. Even Haydn sounds like Liszt on them.
When he made the second recording of the Goldberg Variations he just said he was a speed demon when he was younger.
I'm not educated in music but my ears do like the slowed down pieces. Now my mind can ride the melody instead of feeling like I'm watching a spectator sport.
This seems like a very problematic topic to me. If we look at the editions of Beethoven's Sonatas published in the first half of the 19th century, we find metronomes which, especially in Tempi such as Allegro, Presto, Vivace and similar, appear excessively fast. Let's leave aside the problem of performability, which is linked to variable capacities, and also to the different mechanics of period instruments. I am referring to the "musical sense". My aesthetic sensitivity recommends less convulsive musical tempos. However, if I reduce the speed by 50%, there is an even greater loss of "musical sense". Furthermore, if we apply this reduction to the slow tempos of the Sonatas, or even to some Scherzi, their performance becomes paradoxical. For example. in the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata, Moscheles indicates a metronome of 60 on the quarter note (the rhythm is incorrectly indicated as 4/4 instead of 2/2). The eighth note triplets played at 60 make sense, at 30 they don't. The Scherzo, from the same Sonata, is marked 76 for every half note with the dot (i.e. every bar). But playing the bar at 38 is impossible, it's grotesque. And how could the third movement give the sensation of "Presto agitato" if we play it at 92 every quarter note? There are dozens of similar examples. The same could be said with Chopin's metromones (the half-time etudes become musically ridiculous). I believe we cannot distort in this way the meaning of a tradition that comes to us (thanks to recordings) from pianists born in the second half of the 19th century, who studied with pianists born in the first half. In conclusion, I maintain my doubts (Hammerklavier, 138?!). But the double click hypothesis doesn't convince me...
Truly a Big proof for the double beat theory
That's Gould for you. He got destroyed by the critics for his interpretations of Mozart sounding too much like Bach! Gould honestly hated playing "top 40" Classical music; hated performing too. We Canadians are very proud of him regardless!
A pianist's style, their approach to certain pieces or phrases, etc., whether they be contemporary to the present day or to the piece in question, cannot be distinguished by tempo alone. To suggest that all performances of a Beethoven sonata are all "more or less the same", using only tempo to buttress your claim, shows not just a lack of pianism, but a lack of common sense too.
This is not to say that you are not entitled to a preference as to the tempo of a piece--Gould certainly did, and you aver that Moscheles did too. But to extend this preference to support an argument that this is how the piece should be played, or was intended to be played, is tenuous at best. The reason why Gould's interpretation was so "scandalous" was not because he adopted double beat theory but because the speed at which he played the sonata was simply not in favour with the majority of listeners. To me this is indisputable, as there is of course a significantly larger repertoire that sounds ridiculous at half its intended tempo (a repertoire you conveniently neglect to comment on, to say nothing of the further imbalance of evidence against double beat theory which is rarely acknowledged in your videos).
To speak on preference is one thing, Mr. Winters, but to misrepresent context and state absolutes notwithstanding the plethora of evidence to refute your claims is another. "Double beat theory" ought to be stripped of its last word; it is a conspiracy at best.
It’s very interesting that you made a video on this, as I have been analyzing this sonata myself. I could not believe my ears when I heard Gould’s version (I hadn’t been aware of its existence before) and immediately started researching and getting obsessed with this discovery. And just like you, I quickly discovered that Gould indeed did happen to instinctively hit a WBMP consistent tempo. Really reminds me of modern pianists instinctively playing Kinderszenen at the wrong/correct tempo because it just felt right.
And one last thing, Gould couldn’t have hated the Appassionata that much, because you can hear him humming along in the recording. His playing is very sensitive and heartfelt at times, too!
Gould hummed along with everything he played.
Yes. He only played what he loved, everyone's correct.@@SuperMikeC65
Pogorelić too plays the Brahms Intermezzi "too slowly".....but with colossal effect! BRAVO from Acapulco!
Glen Gould didnt hate Mozart, Beethoven etc. He just hated how everyone else was playing it.
Of course there is a traditional performance practice. Czerny was a pupil of Beethoven, Liszt was a pupil of Czerny and the countless pupils of Liszt (Hans von Bülow, Emil von Sauer, Wendelin Weißheimer, Carl Tausig, Franz Bendel, Peter Cornelius, Hans von Bronsart, August Stradal and his later wife Ingeborg Stark, Karl Klindworth, Conrad Ansorge, Julius Reubke, Charlotte Blume-Arends, Hermine Lüders, Adele aus der Ohe, Rudolph Viole, Josef Weiß, Laura Rappoldi, Antal Siposs, Joseph Joachim, Lina Scheuer and many others) have also passed on these performance notes. And of course this also applies to the usual tempi. But one thing is certain : most pianists today play much too fast, unfortunately also Argerich, Kissin and many famous others. Fortunately, there are exceptions like Sokolow. But what Gould chooses here as a tempo for Beethoven, I consider altered and eccentric.
Still...he will remain Gould :)))).Huge . So your opinion and 1001 others are dust in the wind . What it seems you don't get is his intention of making music . In anything he played. Which the modern pianist does not really want. Or does not know how . So '' speed'' is the answer.
@@cooltrades7469 and your opinion is sand in the gears of your brain 🤣
Gould’s version fascinates me. I heard or noticed things that had otherwise passed by me. Sokolov is an astounding musician! I’ve never had an opportunity to hear him in person. These music academies turn out cookie cutter pianist who play with boring virtuosity and sameness - half the time half-naked women who gyrate, grimace, and contort on stage like a dying cow.
Joseph Joachim was a violinist. Unless it’s a pianist of the same name
Does it mean that it's automatically bad if it's a different interpretation though? If you ask me, I'd much rather like to have different original approaches and new ideas, simply new universes for each piece as long as it's not butchered by completely missing the style and the essence, the idea of music
7:53 „[…]that the pianist has to play 14 notes per second. No one can do that, not me, not you, not the creme de la creme of pianists on any instrument”
Can we stop this nonsense once and for all?
Here’s Chopin’s Etude Op. 10, No. 4 played at 216BPM (14,4 notes a second) by Seon-Yong Hwang:
ruclips.net/video/G8civeOI4A4/видео.html
And here at 224BPM - 14,9 notes a second (just to remind - you call 176bpm indicated by Chopin „impossible”):
ruclips.net/video/UOYrdMRjr5I/видео.html
Here’s Martha Argerich’s recording of Chopin’s 16th prelude at around 224BPM.
ruclips.net/video/WfEB4iDGZMI/видео.html
Kullak metronome indication given for this prelude is 168, so she exceeds that speed by 25%.
The same prelude at the same speed by Ivo Pogorelich:
ruclips.net/video/-9DnaFtwbIY/видео.html
You also seem to have no idea about reportoire for other instruments as well as technical level of their players. Here’s famous recording of Leonidas Kavakos performing 5th Caprice by Paganini at *230* bpm - *15,3* notes a second!:
ruclips.net/video/fijI_fyRwik/видео.html
Do you really believe that if you will keep to reiterate that sentence in every video it would eventually become the truth and magically change the reality? A reality in which there are people that are perfectly capable of doing things you call „humanly impossible”?
I've been collecting metronkme marks for a few months now and am up to over a thousand that I've analysed at least. I can assure you there are dozens and dozens and dozens of examples that go over 20 notes a sencond e.g. saint saens first piano concerto has 21 notes a second in a number of places and 24 notes a second at most, kalkbrenners first set of etudes get up to 22 notes a second, alkans are up to 21 notes a second isidor Phillipe's get up to 18 19 21 and 23 notes a second, Czerny's get upto 18.4, 23, and 26.6 notes a second in just one opus, hummel has metronome marks for mozart that gets up to 25 notes a second, a beethoven piano sonta has a section ay 28.8 notes a sexond with a tempo written over the top of it, lyapunov has an etude from 1905 with a run of notes at about 14/15 notes a second at tempo but he writes accelerando as it starts, and so on (honestly there are so many i can't even rememeber half of them.
And these are the ones that humanly are beyond physical, take moscheles op70 etudes where he has repeated notes of 9.2 a second. Going on instagram you can find a number of pianists doing 10 repeated notes a second with ease (even i can do that) but the etude was written in 1826 before the double catchment so 8 notes a second is the absolute limit and thus that is literally impossible by default. Not to mention the 16 repeated notes a second moscheles gives for a beethoven sonata which is more than the world record of 13 and a half notes a second using both hands.
In order for single beat to even be possibly true you'd have to prove thatthese can be done, whilst to show single beat is not universally true in all cases there only needs to be one example that is impossible (essentially the black swan argument/proof by contradiction. Your argument is effectively proof by induction, and it can't be used for independent things and thus can't extrapolate to external examples other than the one's you've given)
I've even heard pray tell of some mythical beast roaming around the dense forest of metronome marks that is 41 NOTES A SECOND WITH "A TEMPO" WRITTEN OVER IT.
I've not seen it and don't know what piece it is so I can't confirm, but i know a guy who might be able to find out for me.
I'm now personally attempting to collect 10,000metronome marks by the end of the year and analyse them to work out the standards in the early 19th century, and to quash the idea that tempo words don't mean anything at that time. I've not found any musicology papers mathematical analysing the numbers so I've decided to spend the next 2 years to do it myself.
@@dantrizz To what you say I add, can we remember for a moment that anything played above 20 bps produces an audible tone of it's own, just out of the percussive attack of the hammers? That tone would be like a bass that muddles every other sound. Are we really arguing wether or not pianists can play notes as fast as a double bass string vibrates? How far away from reality are these people?
@@surgeeo1406 and over 10 notes a second the ear can't perceive the individual tones distinctly
@@dantrizz So you want to tell me that in this recording of Scarlatti’s sonata where Martha Argerich plays repetitions of 12 notes per second you’re not able to hear individual short repeated notes but one note instead (on each d, f, e, d etc.)?
ruclips.net/video/6Uq3Jiz0y50/видео.html
Or in this rendition by Benjamin Grosvenor: ruclips.net/video/rE9zHnJXp84/видео.html
If yes, then I’m afraid something is severly wrong with your hearing.
@@A.P235 yes i am saying it because there are scientific papers written throughout the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century that prove that more than 10 notes a second is the limit for the which the ear can distinguish tones. So it's not a conjecture or a guess at that, and it's not a question of hearing them as one note, it's that at that speed your brain psychologically isn't able to fully distiguish where all the notes are.
Besides this would have literally have been impossible on the keyboards of scarlattis day no ifs ands or buts full stop.
And you've not even attempted to address all the examples i gave of things that are too fast. (I've found another 3 as well in the last few days that are all over 19 notes a second)
The classical world is a lot duller without Glenn Gould's originality.
💙💙💙
yup... we need more folks like him... even his composition was wonderful...
Another example would be Gould's interpretation of the 32 variations in C minor, which is way slower than usual on certain variations and way faster on other, but it feels so much more natural. I don't know if his version is historically accurate, but now I can't conceive that piece being played without that choice of tempo.
Historically accurate, it is definitely not. But that, of course, does not mean anything to the consumer.
@@leslieackerman4189 Not historically, conceptually. 😆 😂
@@Michelle6998832 History is a concept.
Having played the 32 Variations, I'm not convinced by Gould's approach, as much as I love him. Gilels has the perfect approach, IMO.
I love that version. It feels right. That is the only way to judge a tempo. I think Gould's appassionata is too slow as the basses seem to drag. When played faster the counterpoint of the higher notes seem much more stable/natural.
Gould's tempi choices have absolutely nothing to do with any historical practices. He chose tempi to relate mathematically to other movements in the same piece, in simple ratios, in order to achieve the perception of a common pulse. This has been researched, and Gould discussed this himself.
@Chlorinda it is older than that. Will get you the sources once I'm back in the office.
@Chlorinda In the 1950s, there were many proportional tempo afficionados, e.g. Walter Gertenberg, F.J. Machiatus, Ulrich Siegele, Walter Schenkman. Earlier, there was Rudolf Kolisch, and before that Johann Philip Kirnberger and Johann Joachim Quantz. See, for instance, Kevin Bazzana 1996 (G.Gould: A study in Performance Practice), Abravaya 2006 ( On Bach's Rhythm and Tempo - chapter 7), and Dale Innes 1990 (Glenn Gould: The Goldberg Variations).
Lamond’s recording ranges from around 126-144 to the dotted quarter. I’m not sure one can argue Moscheles’ tempos are completely unfeasible.
I have been reared on Walter Gieseking . I just listened to Glenn Gould (and not Gold as our dear host is repeatedly saying) and I must say I was fascinated by this interpretation and tempo: I felt it allowed me to "enter" into the melodies and motifs. Thank you for this video!!!
When you say 'interpretation and tempo' what do you mean? How else is it 'interpreted' OTHER THAN tempo?
Interpretation: how the instrumentalist (in this case the piano player GlennGould) understads the composer's music composition and interprets it.
Tempo: the rythm if you will, such as directed by a metronome which will either fasten or slow down the musik.
I hope this helps @@organman52
This explanation about tempi is in my opinion wrong.
1- First, some pianists can play the "fast" passages of the first movement at 138 or beyond. Listen to Arrau (even if he doesn't play 138 all through, because that would terrible). So 138 is definitely playable.
2- Second, the metric of the first movement is ternary, so one beat is divided in 3. For me it's a sign your explanation of taking two metronome ticks for one beat is wrong. It should be 3 ticks for a beat then...
What Philip glass piece was that at the end?
I enjoy the visual drawings, thanks for adding that 😊
I feel Glenn’s version, despite his “dislike” of the piece, brings out the heart of the piece - the tentative tender feelings, the stormy impossible to contain feelings - the beauty. I feel any piece Glenn performed is the most authentic interpretation because he himself was authentic and original in his approach to the piano. Glenn was a piano artist with an intuitive approach to his art. He said (paraphrased) that it should be the goal of each performer to play a piece differently, to make it his own.
At 7:14 this tempo really allows to diferenciate the rithmic values of left and right hand so they can stand out. It's triplets versus semiquavers all the way. Nevertheless, Gould only applies WBMP to 1st and 2nd movement in the recording... 3rd movement is played in single beat. Loved the video, i have to come back to this sonata one day...
I love the thumbnail, its one of the best examples of anatomical flow mixed with sheet music.
00:09:38 Is this guy a musician? 12/8 is a compound meter. It is the same as 4/4 except that each beat is subdivided into 3 instead of two. Would you base the tempo of a 4/4 piece on how fast the eighth notes go? Then neither would you do that in 12/8. To me, this is a case of everybody drinking the Kool-Aid. It is an absurdity. I heard that Gould thought that the Beethoven Violin Concerto was not a good piece. In fact, it is probably the most revered concerto in the violin repertoire and for good reason (btw I'm a violinist who has performed that piece with orchestra). What's the point? Gould has produced some incredibly sublime performances which I am in awe of. But apparently he also had some really crackpot ideas sometimes. Does it make him less of a genius? Of course not. But it does make him a human being. People in the Gould cult cannot accept that, and have to find a way to turn everything he did into an act of genius, even if it means turning the world upside down to do it. Can we accept that he was an exceptionally talented, exceptionally gifted, exceptionally insightful musician who was also a human being and was occasionally wrong about some of his ideas?
Great contribution!
This was fantastically thought provoking. Excellent video!
My favorite Beethoven's Appassionata. The Great G. Gould.
You’re doing brilliant work, sir.
Thank you for this.
Superb video quality as well.
Bravo 👏
Gould was authentic to his own understandings of the music he played, can we ask for more? Should we ask for more?
Please try Friedrich Gulda's Op57 recording in AMADEO (1968), he even reaching speed of 140 more (dotted crotchet). Compair to Gulda, Lisitsa is still among these modern 'average' tempo.
I‘ve been working on 1st mov of Appassionata for around 3 months now, i can achive no more than 84 on the most challenging parts, now i decide i will just satisify myself on 69-72-76, a very managable speed for me as an amature.
By the way, I've been reading this score so long, it's literally consistant on 'allegro assai', i don't know why so many pianist just ignore this consistancy, and do such dramatic tempo change all over 1st movement. I would consider it to be in a same metronome mark all the time before the coda when 'piu allegro' kicks in.
Beethoven seems very much care about tempo, in op31-2 ‘the Tempest’, he wrote 5 tempo mark in the first 8 bars!!! Thus in Op57 1st mov, he just keep the tempo same, that should also means he really mean it to be consistent.
@@chlorinda4479 Oh thanks, i've mend it now. Both Gould and Gulda are my favorite. They are so different than other pianists, and its impossible for me to play like them even in a single bar, but i just love all their recordings.
Horowitz played it with a great dedication in general, regarding the tempo specifically.
Hi, Wim. I really appreciate all the work you've done on this topic.
As an amateur classical pianist I don't have A-level technique, but I can pull off most Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin etc. at "accepted" speeds. I find it thrilling that I could do it, but it seems that a lot of music gets left in the keys, and listening to myself, or the "real" performers recordings, it sounds like they have to get through it to make dinner on time.
That said, the whole beat tempos don't feel like there's enough energy to get the emotions going. The place where I find the music feeling natural, fun and emotionaly moving seems to fall right in the middle, tempo wise.
I don't know where that fits in the historical record, but I do enjoy the discussions, and the realization that I don't have to do 2 hours of technique every day just to keep up.
Thanks again for all your insights.
In the historical record you might be considered one of the new generation pianists who begins to speed up the tempo than what the composer had in mind. Perhaps the 1840’s generation. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think your allowed to enjoy music the way you like!
Without any intention of truth, and from a personal point of view, Gould's version highlights certain aspects that in the "Traditional" speed appear in the background. For example, a passage where one of the layers seems to be a "sonic mist", gains an exceptional melodic brilliance (bars 50 to 60). This version can open the door to reflect on the enhancement of each musical layer depending on the speed. Gould has been an exceptional artist beyond the consideration that each one has of the success or failure of his interpretations.
My god! It started with plausible arguments, and it ended with plain nonsense! The sonate op.57 was written before the use of the metronome. So was the Eroica, but Beethoven added later a metronomic measure to the symphony, but not for the sonate. In this case what counts is what is written in the original context. That is "molto allegro" and it means the pulse, not the beats of a not yet existent machine. There is a very absurd video with the sonate op.53 played with the same argument, and it is absolutely absurd. From every point of view. If somebody needs an explanation for that, he wouldn't understand it anyway.
Hey wim, have you thought about a possibility as to why there were so many more genius composers in the past and now talents like Mozart don't seem to exist anymore? I think I have a theory which has been inspired by your research in the double beat theory and how life just didn't move so fast back then as it does now. My theory is that when copulating, people back then had double beat sex (about half as slow as people copulate today). This allows for more time for the correct sperm cell to win the race and create the next genius! Currently my wife and I have been doing historical sex tempo reconstruction and are already seeing positive results!
Isn't that just Tantric sex? Sorry to inform you but you're twenty years late to the party...
If you are by the most remote chance being serius, all the genius has moved to Jazz, and Classical fans have been ignoring it because they're racist. Have a good day.
So, no documentation on what Gould might have said about his choice of tempo for this piece?
Makes sense! As far as I know, Alkan was the only composer who asked the pianist to play a part of a composition "as fast as possible". Maybe Schweitzer's at Gunsbach and Cochereau"s early recordings of Bach at ND, funereal to our ears, really had the right of it!
So rasch wie moglich . Schumann Sonata 2
I am a podcaster who talk about music and love your channel. thanks for inspiration to how to make the creations.
My favourite recording - by Artur Schnabel - is in some ways also eccentric, but to hear him go off like a startled hare in the final movement is breathtaking.
I find Schnabels rubati unnerving…
@@leonardoiglesias2394 Certainly risky
I actually think the second movement is more problematic in Gould's hands than the first. And, with both first and second movements that slow, the finale comes off as not much more than an extended coda.
Gould's Beethoven and Mozart are very different from those of other recordings and they do bare his characteristics (the joke: Everything he touched turned to Gould), but that's precisely what I appreciate about them. His artistic decisions actually work in their own way, and sometimes it's nice to hear an interpretation that's a change of pace from everything else.
this does not work
Was using "bare" for "bear" also an intentional pun? XD
When you make ridiculous choices for "publicity" you create parody where none should exist. It reflects dishonor upon you and in this case, since it is recorded, the dishonor persists.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 It is a sad way to consider that music should only be played as the majority thinks. The interpreter is an artist too, not just a performer. You may dislike the result of course but invoking honor is outlandish, to phrase it politely.
@@babelbabel2419 You are giving Gould too much credit. He had a deliberate propensity for publicity and argument.
I think it sometimes polluted his judgment.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Very nice video and detailed explanation of WBMP
ruclips.net/video/gsJEMH_emBM/видео.html
When watching this video of a metronome at 60 bpm, if you close your eyes can you hear the “and” beat that Wim is saying is there? I can’t hear it. Each tick is the same sound. Further, is this video counting each tick as a beat? It seems this is the intuitive way a metronome works. You focus on your instrument and the metronome is not looked at directly.
The notion that the metronome is supposed to be “1” “and” “2” depending on if it’s to the left or to the right is kind of a weird thing that I just can’t accept. Can anyone show me that the metronome can distinguish the on and off beat like Wim is suggesting, without relying on the visual of the metronome movement?
I love this fellows’ critique.
Very interesting video.
Well, if that's a shock, then try Gould's Moonlight sonata 1st movement
Playing as Beethoven prescribed is of course important, if we understand his instructions right. But sometimes exprementation is ok, because some pieces sound good in many different tempo and interpretations.
But setting the standard at 1.5x the intended tempo and holding virtually everyone to that, ridiculing them if deviating from that, should not be OK. As it stands, this deprives many of the joy of music, conservatory students that have to slave away to be able to meet this standard, but also amateurs that give up on beautiful music that was in fact intended to be played by amateurs also.
There's a recording on YT of Frederic Rzewski performing the Appassionata at a recital in Miami, where he shocked the audience by not only playing the sonata at a tempo similar to Gould's, but also inserting cadenzas of his own composition to all three movements.
Yes, not surprising, Rzewski did this often, integrate an older piece with his own compositions. Unfortunately, it reveals the poverty of contemporary Euro-classical music, Mr. R. included.
Finally, the problem with this interpretation? Beethoven's tempo marking is not just allegro but allegro assai. Gould's interpretation sounds nothing like allegro assai. Again, the second movement. It's not andante, it's andante con moto, whereas Gould sounds like he's playing a largo or lento.
There is, apart from continuity of performance style, an approach whereby the music suggests its own tempi when applying good musical insight. Not to be confused with historical performance.
On the other hand - Czernys tempo that Mr W. uses in his recording is 108. That is a completely standard tempo (single beat) for modern recordings.
What's a CD rack?
Dońt let this guy fool you. He is obsessed with this theory of the slow tempi and is extremely biased in his approach and selection of sources. If you study a bit about Beethoven sonatas and their performances, is clear that a slowing down of the tempo happened between the 1950s and 1980s. The sonata, was indeed fast in its origins and in its conception. This, btw, happened also with some Schubert piano works .
Bernhard Marx, Adorno, Grete Wehmeyer, Robert Philip… already noticed a general slowing down of tempo in the 20th Century. The data is clear: recordings of the Appassionata from the 1920s and 1930s are faster than those of the 1950s. The original quick tempi in this work is not only documented by the recordings of the 1920s and 1930s, but also by performance editions since the 1870s (Hans von Bülow, and Frederic Lamond recommend dotted quarter = 126, Eugen d’Albert and Schnabel 120)
The LP era and the demand for technical perfection on recordings is the most likely explanation for a tendency towards slower tempi after the Second World War. This provoked an increasing focus on the importance of the compositional aesthetic, which expects a kind of subordination on the part of the interpreter and which is tied to a specific anti-virtuoso attitude.
As I said, it seems that a cult of the slow developed in the 1980s in the course of the eco and peace movements under the catchword ‘deceleration.’ Not only were the 1980s the decade in which Sten Nadolny’s novel The Discovery of Slowness appeared and became a bestseller (1983); in the 80s there were discussions about the possibility of halving the tempi in the fast movements of Beethoven’s works: 1980 Willem Retze Talsmas Wiedergeburt der Klassiker, Volume 1: Anleitung zur Entmechanisierung der Musik,then in 1989 the above-mentioned book by Grete Wehmeyer Prestißißimo. Die Wiederentdeckung der Langsamkeit in der Musik. This entire channel right here is nothing more than a repetition of those ¨theories¨.
Since the 1990s we have come back to the origins, turning again towards expressivity and virtuosity, motivated not least by historical performance practice, which far from increased attention to original metronome markings, operated under the assumption that composers of the Classical era were far more influenced by the aesthetics of Empfindsamkeit and Sturm und Drang, as well as the phenomenon of virtuosity than had previously been believed.
Here's some supporting evidence for you: In the organ world, Marcel Dupré was and is heralded as a great virtuoso. On RUclips there is a recording of him playing Bach BWV 548ii (Wedge fugue). To me it is extremely sloppy. He stumbles at various points where the fingering is tricky, gets his hands out of time in the quieter semiquaver sections where the hands play interleaved parts, and at some points completely scrunches notes as though his brain hadn't decided which fingers to use. I made a recording of this piece when I had been a musician for only a few years, and I reckon my recording has none of these problems - although I did face them when I was preparing for the recording. This piece of evidence, along with some by famous pianists, all from the early to mid 20th century, made me think that standards were VERY much lower then. These days, I try to play with zero errors (and zero edits). I think that my standards are far higher than theirs (for better or worse).
Edit: Here's the Dupré recordings. In the BWV 532i, to my ears he misses out the first semiquaver rest. In other words, it sounds to me that he starts on the beat rather than one semi-quaver later, and it does not sound to me that the fourth note is on the beat. I've seen this in pianists who play the organ because their way of playing does not work on the organ. In other words, Marcel Dupré of great virtuoso reputation sounds like an early stage student to me.
ruclips.net/video/cvcEHqc6b2M/видео.html
IMO, 138 sounds pretty good.
I'd love a similar video on his recording of the Grieg Piano Sonata
@authentic sound Did you read Allister Lindenmmood's request? YOu or Alberto need to investigate the Grieg Piano Sonata!!!! Perhaps a WB approach would be a good future video?
Fantastic!!!!
Gould came into the recording studio with 10 different ideas about what he was gonna record that day and then he chose ONE - because there was no technology available for him to offer all his various ideas. But he did talk about what might be available in the future. I'm a pianist today because of Glenn Gould and his refreshing attitude.
Amen! Question: Did the worship of rapidity in music performance parallel the take-off of the Industrial Revolution through the mechanization of manufacturing ("the American System of Manufacture", as it was called at the time, or "mass production" as it is called today?
Yes, there's some overlap there. With more pianos out and about, the idea of a performer being a full time on stage entertainer/musician developed and for audiences beyond the court or the most wealthy. Seems logical that those pressures, the commodification of performance practice, must have "played" [sorry!] a role
The fact that the apparently more acceptable tempi today (assumed to be more authentic) are still so far off from contemporaneous tempo indications seems to show that a personal kind of interpretation really is more important than what the composer necessarily originally intended, or else people would be as offended by 100bpm as they would be 69bpm. At least Gould found his own way through the piece rather than just replicating a perceived standard (his mathematical way of trying to give pieces unity based on tempo-relation-ratios is fascinating).
Whatever works (as subjective as that is)-- works. Interpretations can be different with the same composition, even very different, and bring out different aspects. There is room enough for many recordings.
I love every point you make. I feel you have an understanding of the whole situation, not just aspects of it.
I'll try to look into Gould's tempo-relation-ratios you speak of. Assuming you mean what I think you mean - that the tempo of adjacent sections should be related by integer etc ratios - then that's something that's important to me too, as a performer and listener.
@@JSB2500 Aw shucks, you're very flattering... thanks.
There is a sort of radio-documentary-interview he made for his 1981 Goldberg Variations where he explains the tempo-ratio-relations in some detail, somewhat shyly as he feared it would sound "too mathematical" explained in detail. However, the proof is in the pudding, given just the sheer sense of UNITY that the 1981 recording has.
I think you can find it by searching "Glenn Gould Discusses Goldberg Variations".
There is a big difference in playing with virtuosity or musicality. Listen to different scarlatti sonata recordings for instance, some play them slower and really let the harmonics thrive, while others play at impressing breakneck speed. Both ways can impress, capture and move the listener only in different ways.
So many players never give Bach's harmonies time to be heard. There is a lot that is missed by not hearing the harmonies, in Bach and Scarlatti.
@@mach37 i totally agree. At home i tend to play both bach and scarlatti (buxtehude, dowland and others) in extreme snail speed, i love the feeling of the harmonics going from the guitar body into my chest, every new harmonic leads to the next, elevating the feeling for every bar. These harmonics from bachs lute suite and scarlattis sonatas feels so comforting and healing, just as a cat laying on the chest purring.
But when playing for others i go for a more traditional tempo and I cannot help being deeply impressed by those playing way to fast, these pieces are not easy to play by any means even at normal tempo.
It's interesting that this speed disease is not affecting buxtehude and dowland..
I'm reminded of Seymour's comment: I don't hear Beethoven, I just hear Gould.
Sounds very plausible!. I'm happy, now I can the last movement of Moonlight sonata very relaxed ;-)
Very interesting topic ! I think it shows clearly this issue between the composer's wishes and the interpreters thoughts. I the Appasionata, when the tempo is too fast, I find that the expressive line of the phrase is strangled. The music feels like it's being mishandled, especially in the first movement, where rhythm is the fundamental driving element in my opinion.
I have the same thoughts about Anatol Ugorski's execution of Beethoven's Op 111 (Deutsche Gramophon, 1992), especially in the 2nd movement. Although Beethoven wrote "Adagio molto semplice e cantabile" on the score, plus the fact this is an Arietta, I listened to so many versions of it where the interpreter played it as if it was a race, arguing that slowing down the tempo would make the music "anachronistic", given that Opus 111, like the Appassionata, was not composed for the modern piano, which has more resonance than the instruments Beethoven had at his disposal.
I have also heard opinions in favour of modern performers that the character of this sonata calls for a performance in a fast tempo.
However, I also agree that too fast a tempo acts like a "whiplash" on the music. Gould's slow tempo lets the music breathe, just as Ugorski's lets us glimpse a new world with each rhythmic metamorphosis in the Op 111's Arietta.
For my taste, I know few interpeters who give me this feeling like Ugorski or Gould do. I love Andras Schiff's Appassionata, as Mikhail Pletnev's. But, of course, this is a matter of taste.
As I say in my native language : "Vive la différence !" 😇
I love these videos! Always share them with friends :-)
I can only surmise that unless you are playing with others, the metronome is just like your garden thermometer; to be looked at occasionally whilst admiring the plant life ?
There is only one criteria in music: to boring or not to boring
There is only one criteria in Musichology: To bore, or not to bore.
@@surgeeo1406 Thanks... much better
@Chlorinda oh, there are experts on the road… thanks, more much better 😉
Subscribed and thumbs up. This is such an interesting video. It's all so confusing right now. I have to re-listen to the GG version again. The things i remember is that he does not only play it very slow, he also changes to very fast and creates great contrast between the different parts.
I dont care about all this theory…..tempo is one thing….HOW you play any tempo makes the difference.
excellent video and explanation.
It's a century old fetish to agonize over authenticity and composer's intent. Before that artists were given a lot of room for interpreting a piece the way THEY wanted to hear it (and it was before there were all these records and tapes to establish the piece in the public mind). Franz Liszt used to tear other composers pieces apart and put them back together in unimaginable ways. He let HIS genius shine. We could use more of that today rather than an audience of constipated school teachers worried whether a piece of music is played "correctly."
There is a story of a woman who played Appassionata sight reading in front of LVB. Only imaginable at 69.
This recording was my first exposure to this piece so I was not scandalized by it. In fact it took me many listenings to the “traditional” interpretation before I could accept it as reasonable!
Understood. The version of a work we hear for the first time often becomes our personal definitive and subsequent versions, especially if faster, assume the status of imposter...for a while.
It's incredible to think that we, as a species, lost the correct way to count a metronome.
So basically modern pianist are double so good as the ones in the 18xx ;-)
Gould’s performance is almost cinematic
You make an interesting argument. Much to think about. Thank you.
Gould's tempi, however, subvert and obstruct the phrasing of the music. Listen to, say, Seymour Bernstein's discussion of the first measures of this sonata, particularly of his analysis potential phrasing. Gould's playing was/is all about calling attention to his genius and very little about surrendering his ego to any composer. His recordings of Mozart, Beethovan, and Brahms are what my nonna would have described as an "infamita."
This video is mind blowing. It says all the modern music world want to erase from today's understanding of the early XIX century's works. As it is seen in apparently 'historical informed' performances.
It sounds like a practice tempo, but who wants to buy a record to hear someone practice? But if you are learning the piece and you want to hear a practice tempo so you can hear each individual note, it might be a good recording to have. Also, the 2nd and 3rd movements are not played at such an extremely slow tempo.
A video about Gould's tempo selection in the opening movement of Chopin's 3rd piano sonata, Op. 58 would be of great interest.
Could be an interesting topic! Goulds Chopin ;)
agree!
What about the "famous" version of Gould of the Brahms piano concert with Bernstein? Bernstein was completely against this very slow tempo!
Interesting…In most performances heard here (except for Gould’s) the ending of the D-E trill ornament (C-E-D-C) is never clean or smoothly phrased because the pianist is so consumed with keeping the momentum imposed by the “frantic” tempo. Your argument is convincing, but is there documented evidence that in Beethoven’s time MM markings were meant to indicate half the value? Thank you!
Wim is writing a book on the subject which will be released next year. Meanwhile you can begin your tempo journey here: ruclips.net/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/видео.html or search on the home page of the channel for more indepth videos. Hope this helps.
04:00 check out Pavel Serebryakov interpretation.
This seems blindingly obvious to me. But then again, I'm a math whiz.
Nice work as usual. Groeten uit zonnige Wenen, Scott
Gieseking gets pretty close to double Gould's tempo
A beautiful version...BEAUTIFUL! His Mozart versions are even more sublime.
I just got your WTC kickstarter email. Looks great. Would you consider doing a FLAC version? I don't have a CD player (computers and cars don't come with them) - all my music is played through my personal server.
yes, you can donwload it from the site. i'll copy the link below
www.authenticsound.org/bachwtc1
Secondo te critico e' meglio la versione della marcia turca di Lang o quella di Gould?
I noticed the same feeling when listening to Gould's interpretation of Schoenberg's Klavier works, free atonal and strict 12 tone, slows down and ruins any spontaneity makes the music more dour? or brooding?
Is this the answer to the long running question about all of Beethoven's tempo markings, and his metronome? That it is stupidly fast, because we are reading it twice as fast as intended, because we are reading 2 beats for the 1?
That is how I'm reading this, as a completely unmusical person except for loving music. If so we could see re-issues of the whole canon. And that would be GREAT.
Also - Glen did this on instinct? He wasn't being a scholar - which is a shame because imagine if the sleeve notes had said this. Wow.
Taking the pendulum cycle instead of the "beat" as a reference is truly an interesting point, but I somehow doubt that it explains Beethoven's metronomisations.
The ratio of 2 simply seems too big.
More likely is the fact that he metronomised while already deaf and playing back the pieces in his head, which leads to way faster tempi feeling "right" compared with hearing or playing.
Also it is very likely that tempi were expected to fluctuate way more over the course of a mouvement in his time (at least that is what the trend till present day indicates).
Last but not least, in the few instances we have of Beethoven having metronomised a piece twice his indications do not agree one with the other, showing that tempi were still highly subjective for him (even though he was very enthusiastic about the newly invented metronome in itself!).
I agree
Nothing more inspiring as when deep intelegence meets great music...thank you.
Remember friends: *Unregenerate trolls* are best left unfed -- except perhaps with cookies.
@@chessematics Hungry much?
Good video, and good arguments for thought.
As a 40-year orchestral player I still persist in my belief that Gould was idiosyncratic, and his interpretations were all about Gould, and not at all about Beethoven or Bach.
Still this is a meaningful and thought-provoking interrogation.
check alexei sultanov’s recording from tchaikovsky competition, he’s actually plays it 138
As someone who travels in both the "Classical" and jazz world, with classical music, performers are to play what the composer has written. With jazz however, performers are free to interpret as they choose. What I like about Gould is that he twists the rules, and as a composer of nearly 700 pieces, that appeals to me.
I think in jazz, you’re required to interpret as yours.
I don’t think classical pianists simply “play what is written”, nor did Gould. A classical score could be seen the same way as a jazz chart - as a sketch or a starting point for improvisation.
@@whoisthispianist194 Could be, and should be, IMHO... Today, the score is seen as sacred, which back in that day certainly wasn't the case (hence why Beethoven started writing out his cadenzas, which used to be improvised by the soloist). Though we know much about the music of the last few centuries, a lot simply cannot be written down and thus is lost in time. Which is why I really don't get this obsession with scores. At least jazz musicians let their creativity flow a bit more freely - and at least a jazz musician is a master of her/his trade in the sense of being able to improvise, a skill mostly lost in classical music.
@@JC050980 I agree with you.
Why you said the tempo is wrong ?
Excuse my ignorance, algorthym has been kind to me, but are we saying that we're mis-using the metronome, given that physicist's have consitantly interpreted the metronome correctly? Did Physicist take a great interest in the metronome? Did they insist on it being use properly? Any Physicist intrument player here? Can you explain your fields interesst in the metronome? So many questions thrown us by the incorrect measuremnt/interpretation/use of time.
Услышав 1-ю часть "Апассионаты" своего кумира, Ф.Шуберт принял решение написать "Лесного царя" с его характерным острым аккомпанементом. Если бы он услышал её в иполнении Г.Гульда, мы бы, по всей вероятности, не имели этого шедевра Ф.Шуберта. К счастью для всех меломанов, мистер Гульд в те времена ещё не играл эту сонату.
He was showing off his sightreading skills!
haha!
Two comments I wrote have disappeared.
They were in a discussion with Sergio Fonseca.
What happened there?
I can't find Sergio's comment anymore. He probably deleted it himself which would delete all comments under it.
@@jeremypresle3412 I did delete it. And then I reposted it, twice. Every time, some weird person pretends we're aquainted, and that I asked him a question, and acts all condescending, which I do not tolerate. So I delete it. Feel free to do the same here Olof.
@@surgeeo1406
Ok.
Not sure I understand why you deleted our conversation in the first place, but never mind.
Olof
@@olofstroander7745 Please do NOT delete your comment as it’s an evidence for dishonest actions of that person.
@@olofstroander7745 It wasn't our conversation, you meddled.
Lisitsa would on The contrary really take as shown supertempo every time(play all 24 Chopinetyds)
Harold Bauer takes the opening very quietly, but moderately fast.
6:34 nice